Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[mmu1]

(The largest single block of text in the hsitory of the board.)

Umm... Paragraphs are your friends. Or is that another subjective matter of style?

 

[fusangite]

These Monte Cook quotes are great!

Don't let the rules get in the way of fun. And don't let them be a replacement for creativity -- creativity is an essential element in running a game.

From DMG p. 6
You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them.

Hey! I have absoltuely no problem with these statments. They seem perfectly sound. The approach to the rules should be worked out with the PCs in episode 1 of any campaign, which is precisely what I did. I think the key thing is for one's campaign to have a consistent relationship to the rules rather than a variable one. But what that relationship is should be mutually agreed-upon at the outset; if one moves the goal posts once play has started, it's very different than them being re-positioned by mutual agreement at the start of the game.

That stated, D'Karr, I really disagree with the idea of deactivating characters for 30 rounds while they "think." For me, this idea of paralysis-inducing thinking is problematic because it means that the DM can assess random penalties against people for demonstrating tactical competence. There is no standardized system for assessing how long it takes a person to "have a thought" in reality, never mind game terms.

For me, this would not be a workable solution because it would introduce a random and arbitrary element into the game for which players could not plan in future because they could never know under what conditions time they would freeze in time. I've made the same argument against mmu1 and Tsyr in their suggestions about the game. ? To give you a sense of how long 30 rounds is, the average MTV music video is 35 rounds long. It takes 35 rounds for an Olympic athlete to run a mile.

However, as you point out, it's about stylistic choice.

NPC, your last post made me laugh out loud but it was excessively and unreasonably insulting; to quote Mike Myers, I do not know if for this you should be lauded or chided.

 

[mmu1]

You took it personal, it's obvious by your reaction. He didn't agree with your statementand you got mad. Nobody told you to go away, the only people I have seen fusangite be rude to were people who were rude first. He has been fairly civil here, even when attacked on a more personal level than what is acceptable. He can disagree with you, and he has went to great lengths to point out why several suggestions would not work in this situation. It's not that people don't agree with your suggestion, it's the tone you use and the fact that you are getting defesive. Not everybody has been nice (on both sides) but I haven't really seen fusangite try to be confrontational or start any rudeness, and your suggestion that he must hate his players is just uncalled for.

He has, in my opinion, been looking for validation rather than discussion, and has spent considerable time beating people over the head with the fact he didn't do anything wrong according to the letter of the rules.

He also largely avoided ever answering any questions relating to the inconsistency between first manipulating an otherwise impossible encounter he designed to let the players become aware of it and win, while at the same time insisting that making some ad-hoc adjustments to get certain of the players involved in the combat would break the rules of the game and jeopardise his integrity as a DM...

Perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive...

 

[Elvinis75]

Actually, you forgot I offered an alterative solution way back at the beginning of the discussion.

Have an NPC run into the room where the PCs are putting on their armor and tell them to go join the combat, that there is no time to finish putting on their armor.

That would have completely solved the problem.

Tom

Actually Endur I did suggest just that earlier in this thread

 

[mmu1]

I can see the discussion now . . .
[/B]

Yes, of course... Treating the players like adults means letting them get their way through whining. Good to see you were paying attention.

 

[Darkness]

Guys, stay peaceful, please.
This thread's gone on for quite a while already and I can understand that some of you are growing frustrated. If so, please take a deep breath and calm down before posting.

Thanks!

- Darkness

 

[D'karr]

That stated, D'Karr, I really disagree with the idea of deactivating characters for 30 rounds while they "think." For me, this idea of paralysis-inducing thinking is problematic because it means that the DM can assess random penalties against people for demonstrating tactical competence. There is no standardized system for assessing how long it takes a person to "have a thought" in reality, never mind game terms.

I imagine that what you mean by this is that the 3 minutes I chose to use to assess what is going on in some way freezes the characters to "think".

My point is that they are not in combat why do you have to run the combat rounds down. They are assessing the situation, getting information. After that is done then start the initiative. Why is that paralysis? For all intents and purposes they were not in combat at that point.

I've been in combat - Desert Storm. 3 minutes seems like an eternity in real combat and even in game combat rounds but I can tell you that assessing what is going on in a combat situation can happen in seconds, minutes or hours - all depending on the situation.

These are the decisions that the DM makes and given that you spent the time to create the encounter it would have been better if you got everyone involved sooner rather than later.

For me, this would not be a workable solution because it would introduce a random and arbitrary element into the game for which players could not plan in future because they could never know under what conditions time they would freeze in time. I've made the same argument against mmu1 and Tsyr in their suggestions about the game. ? To give you a sense of how long 30 rounds is, the average MTV music video is 35 rounds long. It takes 35 rounds for an Olympic athlete to run a mile.

Well, then why ask for others opinions of how they would have done it differently if you are going to just dismiss it by saying that solutions that do not fit within your idea of how the timeline should work "introduce random and arbitary elements into the game"?

Your timeline and the whole combat in effect were random and arbitrary by definition. You randomly selected where everyone was placed and randomly or arbitrarily decided what they were doing and arbitrarily started the combat clock when the PCs woke up.

How is that any less arbitrary than letting the PCs get to the location and assess what is going on and then start the combat rounds.

However, as you point out, it's about stylistic choice.

And on this we can definitely agree.

Cheers

 

[Will]

(whew, long thread)

Well, put me in the camp that boggles at the timing.

First, I, as a player, would _not_ have any reasonable expectation that 'an explosion' would mean 'I better get there in less than 4 minutes.'

I mean... 4 minutes? Takes me longer than that to walk down the street. Sure, I guess I could get further on a griffon or something, but...

The idea that an explosion heralds something so dramatic that I have to be there _right this minute_ seems unwarranted. Yes, it could be Cthulhu waking from a long nap, but it could also be the alchemist street igniting again.

If it were me, I would have sat there, putting on armor, until somebody told me things were more urgent.

Which nobody did.

And, after two hours of sitting there, not playing, I would have been really pissed off at the players who didn't inform my character what was going on, and at the DM for setting up the situation.

I would have had more grace than the bozo did, but as the two other players may have been thinking, I would be reconsidering playing that game again.


The only time I expect time-critical events like that is an ambush or people attacking where I am, or when we are at watch. And, all things considered, I think I could easily see 'attacking vampires and 100 dead/spawned villagers' vs. 'attacking vampires without armor' as a fairly clear 'choose #2' situation.

The other thing that would have annoyed the hell out of me, as soon as I figured it out, was that it was clear that the DM was setting the players up. Not the vampires... I'm sure the vampires wouldn't be thinking 'well, it'll take them 4 minutes to put on plate armor...'

The DM was specifically setting up a situation where they couldn't use their armor. It smacks of a DM domination game, and I would not be happy with it, if I were a player.


Let me be clear... I'm not saying Fusngite is a mean DM, a bad DM, or a jerk, or anything like that. I've encountered times when I, or other DMs, have backed into a corner and gotten stubborn about some point. I think this is one of those times.

You jerked them around. They weren't happy. One handled it like a dick. There you go.

 

[jdavis]

My questions to those that so vehemently agree that it was the players' fault and that they should have sat the encounter out, that they should pay the consequences, ride the pine, warm the bench, etc. I digress, the questions are:

Your method is a good way to avoid this but; 1. It relies on him knowing before hand it would all go south, he played it as he planned it, I'm sure if he knew it would become a mess he would of planned it differently; 2. It does take out the whole point of the armor being a crutch, it lets them use the armor in combat without the point actually being made. The whole design of it was to get them to make that choice, if the choice only slows then down 4 or 5 rounds then it really isn't a big choice. We are talking about 4 minutes here, that is a long time for combat and it is a long time for movement and searching things out, lets say he called it 20 rounds to get there and scope everything out, well they are still 20 rounds from leaving the house, and since you increased the time for the first ones to get there then you increase the time for the second group to get there too. 20 rounds still takes them out of the bulk of the combat.

Your statement is also a style change, from a measured time based on 6 second rounds to just winging it and deciding on a roundabout time it would take. I actually agree with how you did it but that doesn't make his way wrong or bad, it's just a different style. Once he started combat rounds he has to stick with it.

Would you as a player like to sit out a whole game night because your PC is playing within what you believe to be his character?

I don't see any way to se the Paladin being in character and waiting 40 rounds. For the others, well that depends on alignment and the gods they worship and a lot of stuff we do not know. Personally I would of made the choice to get involved, it was a black and white decision, put on armor or get involved in the fight. I don't really see how it could be any clearer without just comming out and saying you fight or you sit, I can't speed things up once combat has started.

Would you enjoy doing it because you made a stupid decision?

If I made the same stupid decision 40 times in a row with it obvious that I could put on armor or get involved with the combat that is going on? I see your point but I really don't see where it applies, when during the game should he of realized it was going south and stopped to rewrite the adventure? Once combat starts he is stuck with his rounds, it's how his group plays, to change things on the fly is a big deal. It's a trap of his own making but he is trapped none the less. Rules continuity is important to his group, once he starts combat he is stuck. Again I'm sure if he would of known it would be a problem then he would of taken steps before combat started, but when did he realize that they were just going to sit there instead of getting involved? Their like or dislike of sitting is completly based on their choice to remain sitting. He's got 4 options once combat starts and all of them are bad:

1. killing half the party within the 40 rounds; 2. Forcing the three to stop putting on armor and join the combat (and the DM should never do that); 3. Fudge the rules; 4. Get outside help from a NPC.

Would you like sitting it out if your PC was obviously not aware of the situation?

Already been stated that metagame discussions do happen and are allowed, whether you agree with that or not doesn't matter, it happens in his game. Therefore this point doesn't apply to his game. (good point and if it wasn't for the metagame thing it would of been very important in this situation.)

I personally don't like going to a game where I get to sit out the whole night while the rest of the party is in combat. For any of the reasons mentioned above. Maybe that is just me.

Yes I agree but they made the decison not him, heck they made that decision every round for 40 rounds, even if I was dense or not paying attention I'd figure it out after 10 or so rounds went by and my declared action was put on armor over and over again, 40 rounds is a very very long time in combat. Them not knowing or being fooled in anyway is not in question, they chose to set there for 40 rounds knowing they could join in at any time by forgoing the armor.

As a DM I try to avoid these situations.

Actually I don't, they want to make a bad decision then that is their right, it's their character and their decision. When I said it will take you 40 rounds to get into the armor, my players would of said, "well forget that, I get moving". This has happend plenty of times in my (old now) game. The Paladin always headed off at the first sign of anybody being in trouble, it was his duty, If he only had a sword and shield and a nightshirt, well so be it. The Halfling always wasted as much time as he could getting ready and was fine with missing combat, of course he was usually up to something that he was happy the Paladin was not around to see anyway.

If the purpose of the encounter was to teach the players that armor is a crutch and that they should have been heroic and carried on without their equipment; how does awarding them with any XP for this encounter promote that agenda?

Agreed. I have no problem with that, the fact that he did give them the EXP speaks volumes towards him not trying to punish them.

 

[jdavis]

Umm... Paragraphs are your friends. Or is that another subjective matter of style?

No it's just a matter of me having a big mouth and not knowing when to just walk away and quit.